Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

David Attenborough's "burn in hell" hate mail


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#61    Mystic Crusader

Mystic Crusader

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,204 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

  • "What would you rather be, a bus driver, or a super terrorist?"

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:12 PM

View PostBling, on 08 October 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Science too hard? Try religion!


Sorry I couldn't resist :passifier:

That's not funny! :o

And I'm not defending religion either.

Edited by HavocWing, 08 October 2012 - 09:13 PM.

Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous execution, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God."
Jewish gematria # 629:
The holy bible
Demonic inspiration

#62    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,822 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:28 PM

View PostGummug, on 08 October 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Did you realize almost all, if not all, mutations are harmful? And genetic drift implies unguided...I still find this an unconvincing argument for greater complexity.

No. They are not. The vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.
Genetic drift happens all the time. Maybe you have offspring and I don't. Therefore your genes continue into the population whereas mine do not. Viola. Genetic Drift.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#63    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,822 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:30 PM

View PostHavocWing, on 08 October 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

That's not funny! :o

And I'm not defending religion either.

I laughed. Seems to be the way the majority in America think. And some on these boards...

Posted Image

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#64    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:54 PM

As an atheist I can tell you that the fact that a few extremist nut jobs think I'll burn in hell is not a probelm.
It's kind of like being threatened with Bugs Bunny.
If they say "you're going to burn in Hell and I'm going to send you there"
Then it's a problem.


#65    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,638 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:13 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 07 October 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

While a certain form of education and knowledge may be required, that does not mean that it is not as observable as gravity - even if it is viewed through a different "lens" (that lens being through the eyes of a biologist/virologist). It is just as observable, however... perhaps not to the common population.


But that does not make it true. Belief in the heliocentric model/geocentric model was also a "cultural" norm, as well... however, we know both to be quite untrue.


Perhaps not in a "normal" person's life, however... it is most certainly as observable as gravity through the eyes of a virologist.

Also, I suppose the same could be asked with regards to Sir Isaac Newton. If gravity is so easily observed, why did it take such a long period of time for an individual to codify it, and explain why it occurs?


If you ask an individual who has no idea as to what gravity is, would they be able to tell you what it is? They can see what happens as a result, but they do not instinctively know, "Oh, that's gravity". In order to understand gravity, we have to understand its principles, and how it works.



And the Greeks saw Zeus in thunder and lighting, the Egyptians saw Ra in the sun... What's your point?
To start at the end, my point was pointing out that evolution is not observable at all. some elements of it under powerful microscopes may be observed but as you point out, tha e is not available to most o the populace and the mere observation of those elemants doesnt lead to a knolwedge of evolution That means that ordinary peole have to take it on fauith ie believ in the scientists who tell the it is all so. And the sceintists are right, but  the point i made originally was that ordinary peole dont/cant see evolution occuring, so they have a choice. Believe in what scientists tell them or believe perhaps in what the bible tells them.

One has to have an  knolwedge of evolutionary process to appreciate what one is observing and how it fits into the overall mechanisms of evolution.

As you point out, gravity, while difficult to understand, IS observable, but how does an ordinary person OBSERVE evolution? One can't. One must lean about it in science. Without a scientific education and a long historical record of scientific understandings,  evolution is quite unobservable and actually difficult to deduce.

Those models were based on observations by very intelligent and rational "scientists" of the day They were reasonable but false, again illustrating that mere observaton without scientific understanding does not lead to the right answer.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 October 2012 - 08:23 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#66    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,577 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

I believe on a t.v. program Sir D, did not say that he was an atheist,what he said was that he was agnostic,he did not have to say anything at all,so give him credit for being honest.
   To me he is one of the Greatest persons to ever have walked on this rock.

All the hate mailng "religeous" cretins would do well to follow his example of what a true human really is,and to send hate mail to him is obnoxious.
Why dont these Cowards come out from under the rocks they hide under,and say who they are ?.

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#67    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 08 October 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

No. They are not. The vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.
Genetic drift happens all the time. Maybe you have offspring and I don't. Therefore your genes continue into the population whereas mine do not. Viola. Genetic Drift.
OK I was thinking genetic drift meant mutational change of genes...my bad.

Posted Image


#68    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:45 PM

View PostGummug, on 08 October 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

To my knowledge, however, no species has ever "evolved" into another species.

Speciation, more commonly called "macroevolution", is a term used to describe one species evolving into another species. The diversification of life, both morphologically and genetically, that evolution seems to explain is caused by speciation. Some people deny speciation altogether because it has never been witnessed, even though the opposite is true.

Meet the hawthorn fly, also known as the apple maggot fly:

Posted Image


It is a remarkable case of speciation, as it was not developed in a laboratory, but by nature. In the nineteenth century, after apples were introduced in North America, a distinct "race" of hawthorn flies began feeding on them exclusively, even though they usually ate hawthorns. In this new race, called apple maggot flies, six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different than the original hawthorn-eating flies, hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies and there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate). This suggests that apple flies are evolution in progress.
  • McPheron, B.A., Smith, D.C., Berlocher, S.H. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella". Nature. 336: 64-6.
  • Feder, J.L., Chilcote, C.A., Bush, G.L. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella." Nature. 336: 61-4.
  • Smith, D.C. (1988). "Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony." Nature. 336: 66-7.
Here's the evening primrose:

Posted Image


While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.
  • de Vries, H. (1905). "Species and varieties, their origin by mutation."
Here is the kew primrose:

Posted Image


L. Digby crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis.
  • Digby, L. 1912. "The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids." Ann. Bot. 26: 357-88.
You can find several more observed instances of speciation, or "macroevolution", here.

Edited by Taylor Reints, 09 October 2012 - 08:46 PM.

Posted Image

#69    Cradle of Fish

Cradle of Fish

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:03 PM

View PostGummug, on 08 October 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:


Well, if I'm an idiot I'm in pretty good company, including Isaac Newton and George Washington, among others, who believed the Bible.

Actually it's one or the other sorry mate. The former was anglican and the latter was episcopal. It'd be a coinflip if there weren't so many other sects and religions.

I am not a man, merely a parody of one.


#70    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,822 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:37 PM

What people need to understand about evolution is that it is just the change in allele frequency of a population over time. That is it. That is evolution. If you have a child, it's allele frequency is different than yours. That is evolution. If many people in one group have children, the frequency of alleles is different. That is evolution.
Macro and Micro are never really used in scientific study. They are sometimes used as shorthand categorizations, but they are not biologically relevant terms. The ONLY different between the two is time.

As for people being able to have their own opinions, at what point do we stop allowing willful ignorance to be the new norm? Look at the issue of "race", for example. Biologically, scientifically, there is no such thing. It does not exist. Socially, however, it is very very real. What kind of massive paradigm shift is going to have to occur for people to stop seeing the things like "race", which really aren't there at all and start accepting the factual things that are existent in our world? Evolution, regardless of ones belief, is a very real, very observable and very well understood biological process.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#71    Bling

Bling

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:43 PM

Poor Sir Attenborough has got lost...


#72    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:45 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 09 October 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

To start at the end, my point was pointing out that evolution is not observable at all.
Yes, it absolutely is. That statement is quite false. I will direct you to this observation of the reproduction of E. Coli bacteria...

Taken directly from the paper...

Quote

In 1988, Lenski started an experiment with 12 populations of E. coli bacteria ‐‐ all starting with the same ancestral strain and all living in identical environments ‐‐ to see just how similarly or differently they would evolve. He wanted to keep the experiment going for at least a year and culture about 2,000 bacterial generations. Twenty‐one years and almost 50,000 generations later, the experiment is still growing strong.

source: http://news.msu.edu/...5acae041269.pdf

Quote

some elements of it under powerful microscopes may be observed but as you point out, tha e is not available to most o the populace and the mere observation of those elemants doesnt lead to a knolwedge of evolution
Actually, after giving it a bit of thought, evolution is arguably more observable than gravity. What we see is the result of gravity, we don't see the actual physical manifestation of the forces involved in gravity. When we throw something, we know it will fall... because of gravity. However, we do not actually see the physical forces pulling the object towards earth. In a lab, we can observe absolutely every physical attribute of evolution. As for gravity? All we see are the results of the forces, not the actual forces themselves.

Quote

That means that ordinary peole have to take it on fauith ie believ in the scientists who tell the it is all so.
It's not really faith when the information provided is reinforced with evidence that can be reproduced, my friend. Faith encompasses a belief independent of evidence, which contradicts a scientific theory/law.

Quote

And the sceintists are right, but  the point i made originally was that ordinary peole dont/cant see evolution occuring, so they have a choice. Believe in what scientists tell them or believe perhaps in what the bible tells them.
You don't see gravity occurring, either - you see the result of gravity's force, but not the actual force in itself as it pulls on the object.


#73    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,165 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:44 AM

View PostGummug, on 08 October 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

What an intelligent rebuttal...anything you disagree with, just call it stupid...works for most children, so I guess it should work for you too...
Nothing intelligent about the videos you posted, the guy is completely ignorant of evolution. Animals magically turning into other animals? Now that is stupidity.


#74    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 10 October 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Nothing intelligent about the videos you posted, the guy is completely ignorant of evolution. Animals magically turning into other animals? Now that is stupidity.
I thought that was what evolution was...animals turning into other animals...over billions of years of course.

Posted Image


#75    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 09 October 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Speciation, more commonly called "macroevolution", is a term used to describe one species evolving into another species. The diversification of life, both morphologically and genetically, that evolution seems to explain is caused by speciation. Some people deny speciation altogether because it has never been witnessed, even though the opposite is true.

Meet the hawthorn fly, also known as the apple maggot fly:

Posted Image


It is a remarkable case of speciation, as it was not developed in a laboratory, but by nature. In the nineteenth century, after apples were introduced in North America, a distinct "race" of hawthorn flies began feeding on them exclusively, even though they usually ate hawthorns. In this new race, called apple maggot flies, six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different than the original hawthorn-eating flies, hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies and there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate). This suggests that apple flies are evolution in progress.
  • McPheron, B.A., Smith, D.C., Berlocher, S.H. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella". Nature. 336: 64-6.
  • Feder, J.L., Chilcote, C.A., Bush, G.L. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella." Nature. 336: 61-4.
  • Smith, D.C. (1988). "Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony." Nature. 336: 66-7.
Here's the evening primrose:

Posted Image


While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.
  • de Vries, H. (1905). "Species and varieties, their origin by mutation."
Here is the kew primrose:

Posted Image


L. Digby crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis.
  • Digby, L. 1912. "The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids." Ann. Bot. 26: 357-88.
You can find several more observed instances of speciation, or "macroevolution", here.
Well, this is the most compelling post I have seen so far to support evolution, and the most objectively (read: ad-hominem-less) given, and I will need to look into it better. It makes me wonder if the donkey was originally from horse stock because as probably everyone knows a donkey and a horse can interbreed, but the offspring, a mule, is sterile. Still, the fly, although a different species, is still a fly, and the flower is still a flower...the fly didn't become a dragon fly nor did the flower become a cactus. However, this is at least worthy of serious thought.

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users